From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: per.forlin@linaro.org (Per Forlin)
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 12:21:51 +0200
Subject: [PATCH v6 00/11] mmc: use nonblock mmc requests to minimize
	latency
In-Reply-To: <20110627100212.GA16103@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
References: <1308518257-9783-1-git-send-email-per.forlin@linaro.org>
	<20110621075319.GN26089@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
	<BANLkTikOA3G0Gt4Cxua3EDnAzbFKLAk6Yw@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTimfxrcKWLZJmVC+1zL27th7j4uzEA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20110623133702.GZ23234@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
	<BANLkTi=8Awu4Z3ESizE9WDEyWNw0r9N0ug@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTinK88QT_7Zr2YF1sTAiM778Xp9rFQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20110627100212.GA16103@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Message-ID: <BANLkTinzHPvaH_D=3irfdN72sn7Qxrc2HQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 27 June 2011 12:02, Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 11:42:52AM +0200, Per Forlin wrote:
>> Conclusion:
>> Working with mmc the relative cost of DSB is almost none. There seems
>> to be slightly higher number for mmc blocking requests with the DSB
>> patch compared to not having it.
>
> These figures suggest that dsb is comparitively not heavy on the hardware
> you're testing.
>
Yes, of course.

> I think I'm going to apply the patch anyway - it certainly makes stuff
> no worse, and if someone has a platform where dsb is more expensive,
> then they should see a greater benefit from this change.
>
I agree.

> The next thing to think about in DMA-land is whether we should total up
> the size of the SG list and choose whether to flush the individual SG
> elements or do a full cache flush. ?There becomes a point where the full
> cache flush becomes cheaper than flushing each SG element individually.
>
Interesting.
I have seen such optimisations in hwmem (yet another memory manager
for multi media hardware). It would be nice to have such functionality
in dma-mapping, to be used by anyone

Regards,
Per